Chicago Molded Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1963

142 N.L.R.B. 1272 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

1272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rights may be affected by an agreement entered into pursuant to Section 8(a)(3) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
P & T SUPERMARKET,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(FRANK N. THOMAS)
-------------------------------------------
(JOHN B . PLECHER)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 2107
Clark Building , 701-717 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , 15222 , Telephone
No. 471-2977, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Campco Plastics Company, a Division of Chicago Molded Prod-
ucts Corporation and General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Local 298, I .B. of T. and
Synthetic Processors ' Union, Local No . 130A, Party to the
Contract . Cases Nos. 13-CA-4879 and 13-CA-4879-2. June 19,
1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 27, 1962, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1), (2), and, (3) of the Act and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report.
Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Charging Party, the Respondent,
and the Party to the Contract, all filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and briefs in support thereof.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom].
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings and finds no
prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and
3 The Respondent and the Party to the Contract requested oral argument . We hereby
deny their request as , in our opinion, the record, exceptions , and briefs adequately present
the issues and the positions of the parties.
Respondent filed a motion to reopen the record or in the alternative to remand the case
to the Trial Examiner to allow the Respondent to introduce documentary evidence and
testimony not included in the record at the original hearing. The Charging Party and
General Counsel filed memorandums in opposition . No good reason has been offered by
the Respondent for thus reopening the record ; neither the nature nor character of the
evidence to be taken has been alleged . We therefore deny Respondent ' s motion.
The Party to the Contract filed a motion to dismiss portions of the complaint , namely,
paragraphs numbered VII(B ) and IX . We hereby deny the motion The findings of vio-
lation by the Trial Examiner are clearly covered in the complaint.
142 NLRB No. 135.
CAMPCO PLASTICS COMPANY, ETC. 1273
the entire record in this case, and adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial. Examiner 2 with the following
modification.
The Trial Examiner found that the layoffs of three adherents of the
International Association of Machinists (IAM) were violative of
Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act, but did not pass upon them as
violations of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act. We agree with the Trial
Examiner that the layoffs were violative of Section 8(a) (1) and (3)
of the Act, but we also find that they constitute violations of Section
8(a) (2) of the Act. The layoffs, coming at the precise moment that
the IAM was seeking recognition, were an obvious strategem to dis-
courage adherence to the IAM and remove from the plant three IAM
supporters who might recruit other adherents for that union among
the employees. It is apparent that these consequences of Respondent's
conduct would be of great benefit to the favored union, Synthetic
Processors' Union, Local No. 130A, and thus constituted unlawful
assistance in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner.'
2 At the hearing the Respondent moved to strike the testimony of employee Nowatzke
because the Trial Examiner refused to make available to Respondent , for purposes of
cross-examination , a statement which Nowatzke had given to and was in the possession of
the Charging Party, but which had been shown to the General Counsel. We affirm the
Trial Examiner 's ruling for the reasons stated in his Intermediate Report. Ttidelands
Marine Service, Inc., 140 NLRB 288.
8In view of the Trial Examiner 's findings of unlawful assistance which we here adopt,
we conclude, as did the Trial Examiner, that it is unnecessary to consider the questions
whether the Company had a representative work force at the time it recognized Local 130A
and whether there were real conflicting representation claims at the time the agreement
with that Union was signed . Consequently , we do not adopt the Trial Examiner ' s observa-
tions and conclusions made with respect to such questions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon separate charges duly filed about May 11 and June 1, 1962, respectively,
by General Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local
298, I .B. of T., herein called the Teamsters, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board , by the Acting Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region,
issued a consolidated complaint dated July 19, 1962, as amended , against Campco
Plastics Company, a Division of Chicago Molded Products Corporation , herein
called the Respondent or the Company , alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1), (2),
and (3 ) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151,
et seq. ), herein called the Act. The answer of the Respondent admits certain
allegations of the complaint but denies the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton
at Michigan City, Indiana, on September 10, 11 , and 12, 1962 . All parties were
represented by counsel at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard , to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument , and to file briefs.
About November 13, 1962, I received briefs from counsel for each of the parties.
Upon consideration of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, and upon
my observation of the witnesses , I make the following:
1274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE COMPANY 'S BUSINESS
The Company , a Delaware corporation , maintains a plant in Michigan City,
Indiana, as well as plants in the States of Illinois and Minnesota , where it is engaged
in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of plastic products . In the year preceding
the issuance of the complaint , the Company purchased, transferred , and delivered
to its plants in Illinois , Minnesota , and Indiana, goods and materials valued in
excess of $750,000, which were shipped directly from States other than the States
of Illinois , Minnesota , and Indiana . In the same period the Company sold and
distributed from its plants products valued in excess of $750,000 directly to cus-
tomers in States other than the States of Illinois , Minnesota , and Indiana. I find
the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
The present case involves only the Company 's operations at Michigan City,
Indiana.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Teamsters; Synthetic Processors' Union, Local No 130A, herein called Local
130A; and International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, herein called the
IAM, are labor organizations as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Company's operations
On the basis of the undisputed testimony of John J. Bachner, company president,
and Edward Bachner, Jr., vice president and general manager of Campco Plastics,
I find that for some years prior to August 1961, Chicago Molded Products operated
two fabricating plants, one in Chicago known as Campco Plastics and the other
in Minnesota apparently known as Capac Corporation, each being a division or sub-
sidiary of Chicago Molded Products. These plants became too small for efficient
operations and as no space was available for expansion of either of these facilities
the Company, around the latter part of 1960, decided to consolidate the operations
into one plant at a new location. Before or around that time, the Company also
contemplated the installation of a polymerization operation at the new plant so
that it could produce polystyrene, its basic raw material, rather than purchasing
it on the market as it had been doing.' In the latter part of 1960 the Company
commenced negotiations with a large chemical company which was -producing
polystyrene with the view of forming a joint venture for the manufacture of this
product at the new plant. After much study and consideration the Company, about
August 3, 1961, purchased a plant at Michigan City, which was suitable for its
planned operations. While negotiations continued during the above period, they
terminated about September 16, 1961, without any agreement being reached on
the joint venture and the Company discarded its plan to produce its own polystyrene.
In accordance with its plan to consolidate the two plants, the Company finally
closed down the Minnesota plant, which normally employed 15 to 25 persons, about
December 31, 1961. Commencing in January 1962, the Company gradually re-
duced operations at the Chicago plant, which normally employed about 60 per-
sons, and in May 1962, the plant ceased all operations As operations at the
Minnesota and Chicago plants were curtailed, or ceased, the Company moved most
of the machinery and equipment to the Michigan City plant where it was improved
and augmented with other machines. Production at the Michigan City plant com-
menced about December 1961 or January 1962 While an early study of the area
labor force disclosed a lack of experienced plastic workers, the Company expected
to obtain greater efficiency and production with the consolidated operation at the
new facility and both John and Edward Bachner estimated that its work force
would total around 50 or 60 employees.2
'John Bachner described the polymerization operation as follows. "You buy monomer
fiom the petroleum industry and process it through polymerization, through kettles and
heat thiough a cohd material, which is a molding compound That is making polystyrene
The second phase is take polystyrene molding maternal to make extruded sheets and fabri-
cated products " 'Wachner stated that unlike fabricating the polymerization process is
classed as a heavier industrial type of operation which cannot be located in any area and
that was one of the factors leading to the selection of the plant in Michigan City
2 The Chicago plant had an 'area of some 34,000 square feet and in 1961 produced about
125,000 or 150,000 pounds of material per week The Minnesota plant had an area of
some 15,000 square feet and produced around 25,000 or 30,000 pounds per week The
"CAMPCO PLASTICS COMPANY, ETC. 1275
B. The issues
Broadly stated, the questions presented are- (1) Whether the Company un-
lawfully assisted Local 130A by various acts and conduct and by recognizing Local
130A when it did not have a representative work force at its plant and by execut-
ing an agency-shop agreement when there were conflicting claims concerning rep-
resentation; (2) whether the Company threatened and illegally interrogated its
employees regarding their union membership or sympathies; (3) whether it main-
tained and enforced an invalid no-solicitation rule; and (4) whether the Company
discriminatorily discharged or laid off three employees.
C. The Staffing of the plant
John F. Kolo was employed in October 1961 as plant manager of the Michigan
City plant, and was also responsible for production at the Chicago plant, seemingly,
until operations ceased at the latter plant. Among his other duties, Kolo was re-
sponsible for the initial hiring of employees. Kolo stated he needed some 20 or 30
employees to commence operations and while there was an abundance of labor in
the area he had difficulty in obtaining persons with a high-school education and high
mechanical aptitudes to fill certain jobs, although other jobs did not require these
qualifications. Kolo began hiring employees in November or December 1961, and
in January and February 1962 3 he contacted James Whitehead, manager of the
local office of the Indiana Employment Service Division,' for the purpose of secur-
ing employees and using its testing facilities for jobs. Kolo said at one time he told
Whitehead he needed 30 employees to get the plant started and "automatically that
we may go to a hundred" employees. Kolo could not recall telling Whitehead the
Company would employ 80 persons by June 1, and 300 by the end of the first year
of operation, or that females would comprise 70 to 75 percent of the work force.
Kolo further stated that about February 15, Whitehead, accompanied by two men
of the Indiana Employment Service Division, came to the plant and he informed
them that about half of the employees would be female and requested they obtain
100 to 200 persons for interview as job applicants. Kolo explained he used these
figures because, from his experience in such matters, he had to ask for a far greater
number of applicants than actually needed so he could interview and select qualified
persons to fill the jobs available. Kolo interviewed applicants for employment and
exercised exclusive authority in the hiring of personnel. Kolo could not recall telling
applicants for employment that the Company expected to have 100 employees by
June 1 and 300 by the end of the first year of operation. At times Charles Bracken,
in the course of his training as office trainee, interviewed applicants and while he
may have discussed applicants with Kolo he had no final authority to hire anyone.
Whitehead testified orders for employees are normally placed with and serviced
by two placement interviewers but since this was a new plant he actively participated
in obtaining employees during January and February According to Whitehead there
was a scarcity of experienced plastic workers in the area and in January he estimated
that it was necessary to test between 60 and 100 applicants in order to secure about
20 persons for referral to the Company. Whitehead could not recall whether he
had received any orders or referred any persons to the Company in the period Febru-
ary 15 through May. Whitehead stated that about February 15, he and two em-
ployees of the Indiana Employment Service Division talked to Kolo and in the course
of their conversation Kolo said that perhaps 70 to 75 percent of the production per-
sonnel would be female and he anticipated that employment would probably reach
80 employees by June and about 300 by the end of the year.
Bracken was hired by Kolo in the latter part of January as a management trainee
and during his employment interview Kolo stated the Company expected to have 75
to 100 employees within the first 6 months of operations and between 200 and 300
employees over a 2-year period. In the early part of his employment Bracken was
present on about 4 occasions when Kolo interviewed a total of some 20 or 25 appli-
cants and thereafter, in early February, Bracken himself conducted interviews with
Michigan City plant has an area of about 150,000 square feet and apparently has the
capability of producing around 600,000 pounds per week However, the Company ex-
pected to, produce about 200,000 pounds a week during the first year of operations. At
the time of the hearing it was producing about •90,000 pounds per week. Since the polym-
erization deal did not materialize the Company has about 50,000 square feet of surplus
plant space which it Is attempting to lease
s All dates refer to 1962 unless otherwise stated.
4 The Indiana Employment Service Division is erroneously ieferred to as the Indepen-
dent Employment Service in the transcript.
1276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
applicants, some of whom were hired on the basis of the applications that he had
obtained. Bracken said both he and Kolo informed job applicants that the Company
expected to expand its work force in the manner described above.5 In the latter part
of February, Bracken transferred to material control in production inventory and in
April voluntarily quit his employment.
D. Organizational activities
At the outset it might be noted that the Teamsters, apart from filing the instant
charges, engaged in no organizational activities whatever.
Frank Verzal, the first employee to be hired at the plant, was employed about
October 16, 1961, by Plant Engineer Staroba in building maintenance and at the
time of the hearing he was leadman in the maintenance department. About February
5, Kolo told Verzal, during working hours, that a man in a car on the parking lot
wanted to talk to him and added that this man "had been a friend of the Company's
for about 20 years." Verzal went to the parking lot, entered the car, and met the
man who identified himself as Cyrus Murphy, business agent for Local 130A. Mur-
phy stated he wanted Verzal to help him organize the plant and after some discussion
Murphy gave Verzal a batch of union authorization cards to be signed by the
employees. Verzal accepted the cards and inquired if signatures obtained thereon
would be binding and Murphy told him no, not until a contract had been ratified by
employees signing the cards. Verzal spent about 30 minutes with Murphy and
then returned to the plant.
A couple of days later Verzal began soliciting employees to sign cards and during
the first week he signed up about eight employees. Toward the end of the week
Verzal was in Kolo's office and Kolo inquired "how I was getting along." Verzal
replied he had approached a number of workers and had signed up eight of them.
Kolo then asked which employees had failed to sign and Verzal told him Doris
Russell, Birdie Mae Terrell, and Mary Nowatzke. Kolo inquired the reasons for
their refusal to sign up and Verzal said Russell and Terrell were seriously thinking
about the TAM and Nowatzke was not interested in any union at the time. Kolo
remarked he would not like to see the TAM in the plant as he almost lost his job at
another plant because of the TAM. Verzal continued to contact the employees and
the following week he signed up about eight or nine additional employees. At that
time there were about 23 employees at the plant.
Russell testified that about February 16, during working hours, employee Nord
gave her a Local 130A card, which she put in her locker. Around 3 days later Verzal
asked if she had signed the card and she told him that she was not going to sign it
because she did not feel she would get good representation from Local 130A; that
she preferred a local union and she and other employees were considering the TAM.
Terrell said Nord handed her a card on February 16, while she was working, but
she "didn't do anything with it." Later the same day, Verzal asked if she had signed
the card and she told him no.
Nowatzke stated that in the latter part of February Verzal approached her, while
at work, and asked her to sign up, which she refused to do.
Kolo said he first heard of organizational activities, apparently through supervisors,
about January. Kolo stated that on one occasion Verzal, who was "in charge of
maintenance," told him that he was trying to sign up employees for Local 130A, but
he did not give the names of employees who had signed, or refused to sign, union
cards. Kolo could not recall saying anything to Verzal during this conversation.
Kolo said he never worked in a plant where the TAM represented the workers and
denied that he ever told any of the employees that he had lost a job because of the
TAM. Kolo knew Murphy was the business agent for the union in the Chicago plant
and admitted that prior to February 22 he allowed Murphy to meet with the em-
ployees in the company lunchroom during their luncheon or work breaks.
Romy Peo was hired about January 18 as a production employee and around May
18 was promoted to production foreman. Peo stated that about February 15 Verzal
approached him, while he was working, and handed him a union authorization card.
Later that day Kolo asked Peo if he was, or ever had been, a union member and what
he thought of unions. In substance, Kolo then mentioned that the same union which
was in the Chicago plant was trying to organize the Michigan City plant and asked
if he would sign a card for this union. Kolo concluded by saying the Company
"would rather that there be a union in there for the company's betterment and the
people's betterment. He says a company with a union is a lot stronger than a com-
6 Employees Peo and Breltzka corroborated this testimony , while employees Castle and
Braden gave somewhat higher figures.
CAMPCO PLASTICS COMPANY, ETC. 1277
pany without a union ." Peo signed a card for Local 130A and was a member of the
bargaining committee.
Kolo denied that he discussed Local 130A with Peo or that he told Peo that it was
a good union.
Dennis Breitzka, who was employed from about January 24 to July, stated he
and some other employees signed cards for Murphy about February 15 at a local
bowling alley.
Murphy did not testify at the hearing.
E. Events leading to the Company's recognition of Local 130A, and subsequent
collective-bargaining agreement
By letter dated February 18, Murphy advised the Company that Local 130A
represented a majority of its employees and requested an early meeting to discuss
contract terms.
Upon receiving this letter, Kolo telephoned Lawrence Hassel, industrial relations
manager in Chicago, and then forwarded the letter to him.
On February 22, Kolo, together with Hassel, Murphy, Neva Rain, Kolo's secre-
tary, and employees Peo, Dale Ams, and Ernest Scheulke, checked the authorization
cards against its records and found that Local 130A had 17 or 18 valid cards which
constituted a majority of the employees as of that date. During the course of the
card check some 10 or 12 employees were called in and each verified the signature
appearing on his or her card. Immediately following the card check the parties
signed a recognition agreement covering production and maintenance employees,
and agreed to enter into contract negotiations.
At the hearing the parties introduced a list of employees on the company's pay-
roll for the period February 22 through March 16 (General Counsel's Exhibit No.
19), which shows that there were 23 production and maintenance employees em-
ployed on February 22, 3 of whom were terminated that date. Local 130A pro-
duced 16 signed authorization cards (Intervenor's Exhibit No. 1-A through 1-P),
which Kolo stated were the basis for the card checks The number of employees
remained constant until March 1 when the Company hired 3 new employees, and
between that date and March 16 it hired a total of 15 new employees. In the same
period it terminated two employees. Thus, on March 16 it had 33 production and
maintenance employees in its employ.
Breitzka attended union meetings and was a member of the bargaining committee
which also included Peo, Scheulke, Harold Edwards, and Mabel Scott. Breitzka
stated about February 27 Murphy met with the committee in the company lunch-
room to discuss demands which were to be presented to the Company that day.
Kolo informed Breitzka of the meeting, which was held during working hours and
lasted for 30 or 45 minutes. Similar meetings were held by the committee prior
to subsequent bargaining sessions with the Company. On March 16 Murphy ap-
pointed Breitzka as temporary steward.
Mabel Scott was hired about January 29 and worked in the vacuum forming de-
partment, department 607. In the latter part of February, Scott was notified by
George Singleton, who assigned work to her,7 to attend a meeting of Local 130A,
which was being held in the lunchroom that afternoon. Scott, who had not signed
up for Local 130A, went to the meeting and met Murphy and several employees
whose names she could not recall. Murphy briefed the group on wage and other
demands he was to present to Kolo that afternoon. Following this meeting the
group then met with Kolo in his office. Thereafter Scott attended two or three
similar meetings of Local 130A, followed by negotiating meetings, when she decided
to quit the committee because of her lack of interest therein or because they upset
her. When Scott stated she was not attending the next scheduled meeting, Single-
ton inquired if she was going to represent department 607 and she told him no.
Singleton then asked if she knew of anyone who would be willing to represent the
department and she mentioned Doris Russell. Scott thereupon spoke to Russell
about the matter and Russell said "she wanted no part of it." It is not clear whether
Scott reported her talk with Russell to Singleton but, in any event, she had no
further discussion with Singleton on the subject of representing the department.
Later the same day, William Apple, an admitted supervisor, asked Scott if she
was going to represent the department and when she answered no, he said someone
6 One of these cards was signed by Hixon, dated February 16, who was terminated
February 22. The undated card of Mabel Scott was included but Scott testified she did
not sign the card until the latter part of March.
7 Singleton 's employment status is discussed in connection with the discriminatory
layoff, infra.
1278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
should represent the department. Scott said she did not sign a card for Local 130A
until the latter part of March, at which time Breitzka signed her up in his office in
the shipping department.
Singleton testified that Scott worked under him and the day of the first bargain-
ing meeting, Supervisor Frank Temple told him that Scott was a member of the
bargaining committee and to have someone replace her on the job so she could
attend the meeting. Singleton thereupon excused Scott from work. Singleton
further stated that sometime later, in the latter part of February or early March,
he informed Scott that the bargaining committee was meeting that day, he believed
it was the third session, and she told him that she was not going to the meeting,
that she had quit as a member of the committee. Singleton immediately reported
Scott's quitting to Temple. Temple said the department should have a representa-
tive on the committee and Singleton said that while he had tried, he could not find
anyone who was willing to take her place.
Kolo stated that the Company and Local 130A held about five or six negotiating
sessions after February 22, and that he granted Murphy's request to meet with the
committee members prior to the negotiating sessions. These committee meetings
were held during working hours in the lunchroom and employees were paid for
attending the same
On March 16 the parties executed an agreement covering the production and
maintenance employees, which is effective until March 1, 1965. The agreement
contains an "agency-shop" clause, which requires, as a condition of employment,
that all employees in the unit shall pay an amount of money equal to the local's
regular and usual initiation fees and dues; payments for present employees to com-
mence 31 days following the date of execution of the agreement and for new em-
ployees 31 days from the date of their employment.
About March 19, Breitzka, as temporary steward, received a letter from Murphy,
dated March 17, in which Murphy set forth the names of some 35 employees
presently employed in the unit and indicated which of the employees had or had
not signed authorization cards for Local 130A During the next 3 weeks Breitzka
made "open tours" of the plant during which he contacted some 20 employees who
had failed to sign cards and succeeded in signing up about 10 to 15 of these em-
ployees. Breitzka's solicitations were made during working hours, in the presence
of supervisors and with full knowledge that the Company had promulgated a broad
no-solicitation rule on March 19, prohibiting solicitations of any kind or type in the
plant without permission of the Company He further stated that Local 130A
held no membership meetings after March 16, although the grievance committee
did hold one meeting a week or so after the contract was signed. Breitzka ceased his
activities on behalf of Local 130A around the first part of April. Thereafter the
employees, as related by Breitzka, went on strike about May 22, which lasted for
about 3 weeks.8
F. The activities on behalf of the JAM
Russell testified she knew H. LeRoy McKendree, business agent of the IAM, in
Michigan City, and during February she obtained a batch of authorization cards
from him Russell contacted employees during nonworking time and obtained
about eight signed cards, which she turned over to McKendree.9
Kolo admitted that on March 14 he received a letter from McKendree, stating
that he represented a majority of the production employees and requesting a meet-
ing for the purpose of discussing contract terms. Kolo was not questioned as to
what, if anything, he did as a result of this letter. Edward Bachner said someone at
the plant, perhaps Kolo, told him the JAM was interested in the plant. He further
identified, or identified subject to a check for accuracy, a copy of a letter dated
March 23, addressed to McKendree, the original of which he apparently signed and
mailed to McKendree. While the copy of the letter was marked for identification
it was not offered in evidence as an exhibit
McKendree did not testify at the hearing.
0. The no-solicitation rule
Kolo stated that pursuant to instructions from the industrial relations department,
he posted the following no-solicitation rule on the Company's bulletin boards about
March 19, and the rule has been posted and in effect continuously since that date:
The strike is not an ' issue in the case.
Nine of these cards were received in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit No 18-A
through I . One of these cards ( Terrell's ) Is dated February 17, while five are dated
March 1 and three are dated March 8.
CAMPCO PLASTICS COMPANY, ETC. 1279
In order to avoid embarrassment to fellow employees , employees are not
permitted to make solicitations of any kind for any purpose on Company
premises, except as authorized by the Company. Among other types of solicita-
tions, this includes solicitations for donations , subscriptions , flowers, wedding
gifts , etc. Such a rule is obviously essential to the maintenance of good order
so that there be no unnecessary interruption of work. For similar reasons, as
well as the necessity of keeping the plant clean , employees are not permitted to
distribute literature on Company property at any time unless authorized by
the Company.
J. F. KoLO.
Kolo testified that after the posting of the rule he did not see, or hear of, any em-
ployees passing out cards for Local 130A, nor did he receive any reports from super-
visors regarding the solicitation of employees to sign cards for Local 130A.
H. The status and activities of Neva Rain; the testimony of Ruby Braden
Kolo testified Rain was employed as his secretary and as part of her duties she
interviewed job applicants , but had no final authority to hire or fire employees.
Kolo stated he made the final decision to hire Patricia Hunt, as timekeeper and
personnel clerk, after discussing her employment with Rain who had interviewed
her. In fact Kolo met Hunt for the first time when she reported for work and was
introduced to her by Rain On cross-examination, Kolo was asked if he relied on
Rain's recommendation before he hired Hunt, and he answered:
Part of it . She always made a decision-not a decision , but a reference
check of the applicant for any opposition, and this was one of the cases where
she made a suggestion and I went through it including reference check and
made a final decision.
Hunt testified she was hired about February 19 by Rain, "the personnel manager."
Hunt occupied an office in the front of the plant and acted as receptionist , typist,
worked with payrolls and timecards, and performed miscellaneous office duties.
She also handed out application forms to job applicants and when completed she
would take the form to Rain who would interview the applicant . Seemingly, if
the applicant was hired Rain would then give Hunt various forms to be typed out
and processed . Hunt stated she received her work and instructions from Rain and
if she had any problems she consulted with Rain who told her what to do. On
several occasions Rain also granted her request for time off to attend to personal
matters.
Employee Castle testified that about March 1, at quitting time, he met Rain in
the plant and she inquired how the JAM was coming along in the shop and if he
had signed an IAM card . Castle said he had not signed a card. Rain then asked
how many employees had signed up for the IAM and he replied he did not know.
Ruby Braden was interviewed by Bracken in the early part of March and reported
for work on March 19. Braden stated that in the first part of March , Rain came
to her home and in the course of their conversation Rain "wondered " who was
passing out the union cards. Rain then suggested that Braden ask her sister, Mabel
Scott, who was handing out union cards at the plant. Braden did not indicate
what, if any , response she made to Rain 's suggestion and apparently that ended the
conversation . Subsequently , on Sunday , March 18, the day before Braden was to
report for work, Rain again visited at her home and later Scott joined them. After
some discussion regarding the plant and unions, Rain asked Scott who was handing
out IAM cards and Scott replied she did not know . Rain thereupon remarked it
made no difference because the contract had already been signed.
Braden stated that some 3 weeks after her employment , Breitzka asked her to
sign a card for Local 130A and she questioned whether she was eligible to join.
Breitzka said he would find out and let her know. Later that day, which she be-
lieved was Friday, she spoke to Kolo and Breitzka, and finally Kolo told her she
would have to join Local 130A or "pay the cost ," otherwise she could not continue
her employment with the Company The following Monday or Tuesday she
signed a Local 130A card for Breitzka at the plant.
Scott testified that while visiting with Braden and Rain at the former's home
on March 18, Rain asked if she knew who was passing out JAM cards and she
told Rain she did not know.
Lucille Thibideau was hired on March 1 . About 1 week prior thereto, Thibideau
was interviewed by Rain and during this interview Rain inquired if she had ever held
office in any union and she told her no.
Rain did not testify at the hearing.
Braden 's testimony was not denied by Kolo.
1280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. The discriminatory layoff
Russell , Terrell, and Nowatzke were hired in the latter part of January by Kolo
and worked in the vacauum forming department, department 607, apparently as
punch press operators, under Singleton. Nowatzke stated that during her employ-
ment interview by Kolo and Bracken, Kolo asked if there was any union at Ecko,
where she had been employed. Nowatzke replied the Teamsters had the plant but
during her employment there she signed up for the IAM. As appears above, Rus-
sell solicited employees to join the IAM and Russell, Terrell, and Nowatzke refused
Verzal's request to sign cards for Local 130A, which Verzal reported to Kolo.
Russell stated that about March 9, Kolo informed Terrell, Nowatzke, and herself
that he was transferring them to department 604, the extrusion department, as
inspectors. All of them expressed their opposition to the transfer, Russell adding
that she did not want to work the midnight shift because it would create a problem
in getting her children to school and there were no girls assigned to department
604. Kolo pointed out she would receive an increase of 20 cents an hour for
working the midnight shift, but Russell stated she preferred to work in department
607 at her present rate. Terrell asked why they had to be transferred and Kolo
said they were the best workers and he wanted them to perform inspection duties
Both Russell and Terrell said that Kolo, after listening to their protests, declared
he made the rules and that they were being transferred to department 604. The
conversation then ended.
The next day, Saturday, March 10, Russell and Terrell spoke to Temple, their
supervisor, and complained that there were girls in department 607 with less
seniority who were willing to take the jobs in department 604. Temple said he
would talk to these girls and later that day he told Russell and Terrell that these
girls had agreed to transfer to department 604 and that Russell and Terrell would
remain in department 607. Shortly thereafter, Temple informed Russell and Ter-
rell he had bad news for them, that Kolo had instructed him "to get out there and
undo what he had done, that he was the boss and we were going into department
604." Russell and Terrell were then told to report for the midnight shift commenc-
ing Monday, March 12. However, Rain telephoned Russell and Terrell on Mon-
day and advised them not to report for work until they received further notice.
Terrell then called Nowatzke, who in turn telephoned the plant office, and she, too,
was told not to report for work until further notice.
On March 13, Russell, Terrell, and Nowatzke went to the plant where Kolo
talked with them individually and, as a result, they were recalled and then laid off
under the following circumstances.
Russell was told by Kolo to report for work on the midnight shift commencing
March 14, which she did and worked that shift. The next night Kolo telephoned
Russell not to come because the extruder had broken down.
Terrell was told to report for work on the day shift, 8 to 4, on March 14, which
she did. She also worked the same shift on March 15, and at or near the end of
her shift Singleton informed her that Kolo stated there was not enough work, so
she was being laid off. Shortly thereafter, Terrell met Temple in the plant and in
the course of a discussion concerning her layoff, Temple said she was laid off
"over the union ," but if the question came up later he would deny making this
statement.
Nowatzke stated she asked Kolo if she had been laid off because of her work and
he answered no. She then asked if it was because of the union and he remarked
"he had never seen such a small town indoctrinated with unions as Michigan
City." Nowatzke then stated, "You know how I feel about unions." Kolo con-
cluded the conversation by telling Nowatzke to report for work on the 4 to 12 shift
that day. Nowatzke worked this shift on March 13 and 14. On March 15 some-
one from the plant office telephoned Nowatzke and told her not to report for work.
Thereafter, Nowatzke telephoned the plant office about returning to work and she
was told by Rain, she believed, to wait until she was called. Nowatzke was called
back to work on March 27. After her recall Nowatzke signed a Local 130A card
for Breitzka, in his office, "just before the deadline," which she said was March 31.
Russell was unsuccessful in several attempts to contact Kolo, so about 1 week
after her layoff she and Terrell went to the plant and asked Rain if they could
talk to Kolo. Rain said Kolo was busy and could not see them, whereupon Russell
asked the reason for their layoff. Rain said she could not tell them why they
were laid off, "but we wouldn't be called back to work-we could take it from
there." Russell then inquired if their work had been satisfactory and Rain replied
Russell and Terrell were two of the best girls in the plant . Russell further inquired
CAMPCO PLASTICS COMPANY, ETC. 1281
if they were laid off because of the union and Rain "wouldn't say." Apparently,
that ended the conversation.
Following this conversation , Russell and Terrell asked Temple if he knew the
real reason for their layoff and he said "yes, but he could not commit himself."
Russell also asked Singleton if he knew why they had been laid off and he answered
he did not know. In response to Russell 's inquiry when they would be recalled,
Singleton said he had spoken to Kolo about the matter , but Kolo refused to give
him any answer.
Russell had several conversations with McKendree concerning the layoff and on
April 19 she and Terrell met with McKendree at his office . McKendree told them
that he had talked with Murphy , who in turn had spoken to Kolo, and that "our
jobs were waiting for us." Russell then telephoned Rain and she told them to
report for work . Russell then returned to work on April 24, while Terrell returned
on April 23.
Singleton was hired about January 29 and worked in the vacuum forming depart-
ment under Temple . In February, Verzal solicited Singleton , while working, to sign a
Local 130A card , which he did. Around the end of February, or 3 or 4 weeks after
he had been hired , Kolo asked Singleton if he could handle the vacuum forming de-
partment and Singleton said that he could . Temple, who was present, agreed that
Singleton could take over the department . Kolo then stated that Singleton would be
in charge of the department . Singleton did not state whether he was given any job
title at the time and his pay rate, $2 an hour, was not changed until the middle of
March , when it was increased to $2.05 an hour . Singleton voluntarily quit his em-
ployment about the end of March.
Singleton testified there were as many as 15 employees in the department while he
was in charge thereof and that he assigned work to the employees , checked their work,
prepared appraisal or rating forms for Russell and Terrell , and occasionally operated
machines.
Singleton stated Russell , Terrell , and Nowatzke worked in his department and
were laid off about March 15. On the same date , three new employees were hired
in the department, one of whom was Virginia Beeman. Around that time, Singleton
asked Kolo why Russell , Terrell , and Nowatzke had been laid off, that they were
his best production workers and he could not maintain production , which was behind
schedule, with three new employees . Kolo refused to give any reason for the layoff
of these employees . Singleton also asked Temple why the girls had been laid off
and he said , "Because they were passing out Machinist Union cards." However, he
cautioned Singleton he would deny making this statement if the matter came up in
the future . Singleton further stated that he telephoned Russell after her layoff, and
when she inquired why she had been laid off he said he had been unable to find out
the reason therefor.
Kolo said that in February or March they started to run the extruders in the extru-
sion department and, as he needed inspectors at the end of each line , he decided to
transfer Russell , Terrell , and Nowatzke to the extrusion department as inspectors
because they were the three best girls in the plant. Kolo stated he probably consulted
with Temple and William Apple , supervisors in the vacuum forming department,
regarding the transfer of the three girls . Kolo could not recall discussing the transfer
with the girls themselves , but he did recall Nowatzke and either Russell or Terrell tell-
ing him that they preferred to remain as press operators rather than be transferred to
inspection work . Again , when asked if Temple informed him that Russell , Terrell,
and Nowatzke did not want the transfer but that he had three girls who were willing
to be transferred , Kolo could not recall any such statement by Temple, although he
may have made this suggestion . Kolo said he laid off Russell , Terrell, and Nowatzke
because of a slowdown in work sometime in March , but he could not recall that he
gave them any reason for the layoff , or that he spoke to them about the layoff. Kolo
said the three girls were recalled under the following circumstances:
Hassel , industrial relations manager, telephoned Kolo from Chicago and told
Kolo to review the entire payroll of persons on layoff and otherwise because there
were "some discrepancies somewhere along the line ." Hassel also told Kolo to "pay
attention to getting back in line with the seniority list." Kolo , after examining his
payroll and as business was starting to pick up , thereupon recalled Russell , Terrell,
and Nowatzke at different times,. together with perhaps 15 or 20 other persons
sometime in March , April, or May. When asked how many employees were laid
off in March , Kolo said he would have to check the Company's records . However,
he failed to furnish this information , although he was recalled as a witness and
testified regarding other matters.
Kolo denied Singleton was employed in a supervisory capacity . Singleton, he
stated , was a line maintainer and his duties included setting up and starting produc-
tion equipment , placing operators at various stations and rotating them for relief
1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and lunch periods in accordance with a scheduled timetable. Singleton was the only
line maintainer in department 607 and he held that job classification throughout his
employment with the Company.
Concluding Findings
In essence, it is the theory of the General Counsel that the Company by unlawfully
assisting Local 130A in signing up a majority of the employees, by recognizing it as
the statutory representative of its employees at a time when it did not have a
representative complement of employees, by executing an agreement with Local 130A
when there were conflicting claims concerning representation, by maintaining and
enforcing the agreemet providing for an agency shop, and by other acts and conduct,
the Company thereby violated Section 8(a) (1), (2), and (3) of the Act. The alleged
violations are vigorously challenged by counsel for the Company and Local 130A.
Counsel for the parties have presented their respective positions in well-prepared
and well-documented briefs.
Here the material facts are not seriously disputed, so on the basis of the testimony
detailed above, I find as follows:
Organizational activities at the Michigan City plant began about February 5 when
Kolo told Verzal to see Murphy, the business agent for Local 130A, who was in his
car parked on the company parking lot. Kolo knew Murphy had acted as business
agent for Local 130A, which had represented the employees at the Chicago plant,
and emphasized to Verzal that Murphy had been "a friend" of the Company for
about 20 years. Murphy was a complete stranger to Verzal but, in accordance with
Kolo's instructions or suggestions, he went to the parking lot where he met Murphy.
Murphy after identifying himself, asked Verzal's assistance in organizing the plant
and, when he accepted, Murphy gave Verzal a batch of authorization cards to be
distributed among the employees, with the understanding that they would not be
binding until Local 130A had obtained a contract subject to approval by the em-
ployees signing the cards. Following this conversation, Verzal solicited employees to
sign the authorization cards during working hours, without interference on the
part of company officials. Toward the end of the week Kolo asked Verzal how the
campaign was progressing and Verzal reported he had contacted a number of em-
ployees and succeeded in signing up about eight workers. Kolo thereupon asked for
the names of employees who had refused to sign cards and when Verzal named
Nowatzke, Russell, and Terrell, Kolo queried the reasons for their refusal to sign up
Verzal informed him Nowatzke was not interested in any union and Russell and Ter-
rell were considering the IAM. Kolo then stated he would not like to have the IAM
in the plant because the IAM had almost caused him to lose his job at another plant.
Verzal continued his campaign and by the end of the next week, around February 16,
he signed up 8 or 9 additional workers for a total of 16 or 17 employees. Kolo
admitted that prior to February 22, he allowed Murphy to meet with the employees
in the company lunchroom during their luncheon or work breaks.
Nowatzke, Russell, and Terrell substantiated the fact that Verzal solicited them to
sign cards for Local 130A during working hours. Peo likewise testified that Verzal
approached him about February 15 during working hours and asked him to sign a
card. Later the same day Kolo questioned Peo concerning his present or past member-
ship in unions and his opinion of unions. Kolo further informed Peo that Local 130A
had represented the employees at the Chicago plant and requested Peo to sign a card
for this union. Kolo concluded his talk by saying both the Company and employees
would benefit by having a union, plainly Local 130A, in the plant. Peo signed an
authorization card and was a member of the bargaining committee.
The organizational campaign concluded around February 16 when Local 130A,
through Verzal's efforts, secured signed authorization cards from about 17 of the
23 employees then employed at the plant There is no dispute as to the manner
in which the drive was initiated and conducted. except that Kolb exhibited a hazy
recollection of his conversation with Verzal at the end of the first week of the cam-
paign and, in general, he denied Verzal's testimony on this phase of the case. Like-
wise, he denied that he interrogated Peo concerning his union memebrship or sym-
pathies or that he urged Peo to sign up for Local 130A. From my observation of the
witnesses while testifying, I have no difficulty in accepting the testimony of Verzal
and Peo, so I find that Kolo made the statements and engaged in the conduct attributed
to him by Verzal and Peo
On February 18 Murphy sent a letter to the Company requesting recognition, and
on February 22 representatives of the Company and Local 130A conducted a card
check to determine the Union's majority status While there may have been some
question as to the precise number of authorization cards presented by Murphy there
is no doubt he had some 16, 17, or 18 cards which constituted a majority of the 23
CAMPCO PLASTICS COMPANY, ETC. 1283
employees employed at the plant that day. As a result of the card check the
parties forthwith executed a recognition agreement covering the production and
maintenance employees and agreed to enter into contract negotiations.
About February 27 Murphy met with the Local 130A bargaining committee in the
lunchroom to discuss demands which were to be presented to the Company that
afternoon. The bargaining committee was composed of some five employees in-
cluding Scott. Scott worked in department 607 and on the day in question Singleton
instructed her to attend the meeting with Murphy as a representative of department
607, despite the fact that Scott had exhibited no interest in organization and had not
signed a card for Local 130A. Nevertheless, Scott followed Singleton's instructions
and attended the meeting as well as the bargaining session held later that day. After
attending two or three subsequent committee meetings and bargaining sessions, Scott,
at the time of the next meeting, informed Singleton she would no longer act as de-
partment representative on the committee. Singleton then inquired if she knew of
anyone who would be willing to represent the department and she mentioned Russell.
However, when Scott spoke to Russell about serving on the committee Russell
"wanted no part of it." The same day Supervisor Apple questioned Scott if she had
withdrawn from the committee and when she replied that she had, Apple said the
department should be represented on the committee.
Singleton's testimony fully supports Scott's account of the manner in which she
was appointed a member of the bargaining committee. Thus, he testified that the
day of the first negotiating session, Supervisor Temple advised him that Scott was a
member of the committee and to excuse her from work, which he did. Singleton
related that, after attending two or three meetings, Scott informed him she had quit
the committee and he immediately informed Temple of her action. Temple stated
the department should have a representative on the committee and Singleton replied
that while he had attempted to find a replacement for Scott, he had been
unsuccessful.
On the basis of the uncontested testimony of Scott and Singleton, I find the
Company, through Temple, designated Scott to be a member of the bargaining
committee for Local 130A, and that she served in that capacity through two or
three bargaining sessions when she quit the committee. From the testimony of
Singleton and Kolo, I am convinced that on and after the latter part of February,
Singleton responsibly directed the work of employees in department 607 and that he
was employed as a supervisoi within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
But, assuming the contrary, the result would be the same, for the decision to desig-
nate Scott as department representative on the Local 130A committee was made
by Temple, or his superiors, and Singleton did nothing more than carry out Temple's
specific instructions insofar as Scott was concerned.
After a series of meetings between representatives of Local 130A and the Com-
pany, the parties, on March 16, executed an agreement containing an agency-shop
clause which is effective until March 1, 1965.
On the basis of the foregoing findings, I have no difficulty in further finding and
concluding that the Company, if it did not actually initiate and sponsor Local 130A
as the representative of its employees, clearly rendered all aid and support necessary
for Local 130A to obtain its majority status, quickly granted recognition to it as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees, designated at least one mem-
ber of its bargaining committee, and finally executed an agreement with Local 130A.
Accordingly, I find the evidence fully supports the General Counsel's contention
that the Company by engaging in the acts and conduct found herein rendered unlaw-
ful assistance to Local 130A in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.10
In view of the above finding of illegal assistance, the questions (1) whether the
Company had a representative work force at the time it recognized Local 130A,
and (2) whether there were conflicting representation claims at the time the agree-
ment was signed, become academic and immaterial to the decision in the case.
However, since counsel spent much time on these issues at the hearing, as well as
in their briefs, it seems appropriate to discuss briefly these points.
It is undisputed, as set forth above, that the Company for purely economic reasons
decided to consolidate its Chicago and Minnesota operations into one consolidated
plant and finally selected Michigan City as the site for its new plant. Both John
and Edward Bachner testified that the new plant would employ some 50 or 60
employees. On the other hand there is an abundance of credible testimony that
Kolo advised representatives of the Indiana Employment Service Division and job
10 N L.R B v. Link -Belt Company, 311 U.S. 584 , 588-600; Salmirs Oil Company, 139
NLRB 25; Fiore Brothers • Oil Co, Inc ., 137 NLRB 191.
712-5418-64-vol. 142-82
1284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
applicants that the Company expected to employ between 75 and 100 workers by
June and from 200 to 300 employees within 1 or 2 years. Kolo did not specifically
deny this testimony, instead he relied upon lack of recollection insofar as job appli-
cants were concerned. He further admitted telling Whitehead that the plant would
"automatically" hire 100 employees and that he requested Whitehead to obtain 100
to 200 job applicants in order that he might have sufficient persons to fill the jobs
available. I entertain no doubt whatever that Kolo made the statements regarding
the size of the work force as related by witnesses for the General Counsel and I
reject his explanation for his statements to Whitehead as highly implausible. In any
event the Company never reached the employment figures for June, or at any other
time, as predicted by Kolo. Indeed, the testimony of Edward Bachner and Kolo
discloses that as of the date of the hearing, that is the workweek ending September 9,
the Company had about 55 production and maintenance employees on its payroll.
Moreover, Kolo stated employment for the entire period reached a peak of 61
employees but that lasted for only 1 week. The employment figures were not, and
are not, challenged in any respect by the General Counsel. I fail to see how this
testimony would support a finding that the Company contemplated, or contemplates,
an expansion of its work force. Further, I fail to see how the physical size of the
plant would warrant the inference of such an expansion for John Bachner fully
explained why the Company obtained the present facility. Since the Company had
about 23 employees on February 22 when it recognized Local 130A, which consti-
tuted about 40 percent of its planned, and actual, work force, it is my opinion that
the Company had a representative complement of employees when it granted recog-
nition to Local 130A.11
With respect to the second point, the record shows that McKendree first demanded
recognition on March 14 when he sent a letter to the Company claiming the IAM
represented a majority of the production and maintenance employees and requested
a meeting to discuss contract terms. Obviously, the demand was ignored by the
Company for it signed an agreement with Local 130A on March 16. It is equally
clear the IAM did not further press its demand for recognition by the filing of a
representation petition, or an unfair labor practice charge, or otherwise. The Gen-
eral Counsel contends the bare demand of the IAM created a real question concern-
ing the representation of the employees. The General Counsel frankly concedes the
IAM had only 9 signed authorization cards out of 32 employees as of that date,
which failed to meet even the 30 percent administrative showing of interest normally
required to raise a substantial question concerning representation. In the circum-
stances and the findings in this case I think it sufficient to say that the record does
not sustain the General Counsel's position. In so holding, I do not consider it
necessary to discuss the applicability of the Midwest Piping doctrine (63 NLRB
1060), as explicated in subsequent cases, to the present situation, nor do I pass upon
the issue of whether a labor organization may raise a question concerning repre-
sentation in the interval between the date of recognition of another unassisted labor
organization by an employer and prior to the date of execution of a contract be-
tween the recognized labor organization and the employer.
The undisputed evidence shows that about March 19, Breitzka, temporary steward,
received a letter from Murphy setting forth the names of employees who had or
had not signed cards for Local 130A, and in the next 3 weeks he openly solicited
employees in the latter group during working hours and succeeded in signing lip
from 10 to 15 of these employees. Included in this group was Braden, whose un-
denied testimony established that she was employed on March 19, and shortly there-
after Breitzka solicited her to sign up for Local 130A. Braden questioned whether
she was eligible to join and later that day when she brought the matter to Kolo's
attention, Kolo, in the presence of Breitzka, told her she had to join Local 130A or
"pay the cost," otherwise she could not continue her employment with the Com-
pany. She then signed a card for Breitzka. Nowatzke, too, was solicited to sign
a Local 130A card by Breitzka shortly after her recall to the job on March 27.
Again, it is undisputed the Company has maintained and enforced its agreement with
Local 130A, including the agency-shop provision.
On the foregoing evidence, I find the Company thereby violated Section 8(a)(1),
(2), and (3) of the Act.12
-General Extrusion Company, Inc, General Bronze Alwinttte Products Corp, 121
NLRB 1165. See also Foremost Appliance Corp, 128 NLRB 1033 ; Bzura Chemical Com-
pany, Inc., 129 NLRB 929; Kolker Chemical Corporation, 130 NLRB 1394;
Meramec
Mining Company, 134 NLRB 1675. A. O. Smith Corporation, 122 NLRB 321, cited by the
General Counsel to support his position, is factually distinguishable from the present case.
12 Quality Coal Corporation, et al , 139 NLRB 492.
CAMPCO PLASTICS COMPANY, ETC. 1285
The Company concedes that since March 19 it has maintained and enforced a
broad rule prohibiting solicitations of any type among its employees at any time at
the plant without permission of the Company. Kolo claimed he did not witness
any violations of the rule, nor were any violations reported to him. In view of the
testimony of Breitzka, Braden, and Nowatzke, I find Kolo' s assertions incredible and
I reject his testimony on this point. On the facts herein, I have no difficulty in find-
ing the Company promulgated the rule for discriminatory reasons, to preclude any
solicitations by the IAM, and clearly made no effort to enforce the rule insofar as
solicitations on behalf of Local 130A were concerned. By thus promulgating and
maintaining the rule, the Company violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.13
The testimony of Hunt and Kolo clearly proves that Rain was employed as a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and I so find. It is
equally clear from the undisputed testimony detailed above that Rain interrogated
Castle, Braden, and Scott concerning their membership in the IAM, as well as the
names of IAM adherents, and that in the course of an employment interview she
questioned Thibideau whether she had ever held office in any union. I find that
Rain's interrogation of employees or applicants for employment in the above manner
constituted interference, restraint, and coercion with the rights guaranteed employees
in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) thereof.
Again the evidence adduced by the General Counsel with respect to the discrimina-
tory layoff of Russell, Terrell, and Nowatzke was not seriously challenged by the
Company. On the basis of the credible testimony of the discriminatees and Single-
ton, detailed above, I find that Kolo as a consequence of his illegal interrogations of
Nowatzke and Verzal, in January and February, respectively, was fully cognizant to
the fact that Russell, Terrell, and Nowatzke refused Verzal's solicitation to sign up
with Local 130A because they were IAM adherents. From the date of their employ-
ment the discriminatees worked in department 607, under Singleton, and Kolo admit-
ted they were "the best 3 girls in the plant." On Friday, March 9, Kolo summarily
transferred Russell, Terrell, and Nowatzke to department 604 as inspectors, on dif-
ferent shifts, effective Monday, March 12. Protests against the transfer by the
discriminatees, as well as Supervisor Temple, plus the fact that three other girls were
willing to be transferred to department 604, were ignored by Kolo who declared he
made the rules and the transfer would stand.
Despite the apparent urgency for the transfer, the Company on March 12, through
Rain, notified Russell, Terrell, and Nowatzke they were not to report for work until
further notice. The next day the discriminatees went to the plant where they spoke
to Kolo individually and as a result of these talks:
Russell worked the midnight shift commencing March 14, and the next evening
Kolo telephoned her not to come in because the machine had broken down.
Terrell worked the day shift on March 14 and 15 when she was laid off for lack of
work.
Nowatzke worked the 4 to 12 shift on March 13 and 14, and on March 15 the plant
telephoned her not to report for work until further notice.
Immediately following her notification of layoff, Terrell spoke to Temple who
stated she was being laid off "over the union." Sometime later Russell and Terrell
asked Temple if he knew the real reason for their layoff and he answered "yes,
but he could not commit himself." Likewise, when Russell and Terrell asked Rain
if they had been laid off because of their union activities, Rain commented she
"wouldn't say."
While I have found Singleton was employed in a supervisory capacity on and after
the latter part of February, and was the immediate supervisor over Russell, Terrell,
and Nowatzke in March, the record is clear that he not only had nothing to do with
their layoff, but actually opposed it. Thus, he testified when Russell, Terrell, and
Nowatzke were laid off around March 15 and replaced by three new girls, he com-
plained to Kolo he could not maintain production, which was already behind schedule,
and asked why they had been selected for layoff. Kolo refused to state the reason or
reasons for his action. Singleton then asked Temple why the discriminatees had
been laid off and Temple said "because they had been passing out Machinist Union
cards." I accept Singleton's testimony; in fact it was not denied by either Kolo or
Temple.
Russell and Terrell went to the plant several times to see Kolo a week or so
after their layoff, but were unable to talk with him. They also spoke to McKendree,
who talked with Murphy, and as a consequence Russell and Terrell were called back
13 United Aircraft Corporation, Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Division, 139 NLRB 39 ;
General Industries Electronics Company, 138 NLRB 1371 , Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing
Co., 138 NLRB 615 ; Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697.
1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to work on April 24 and 23, respectively. As stated above, Nowatzke returned to
work on March 27.
Kolo's version of the transfer of the discriminatees, their layoff and subsequent
recall, is vague, elusive, and unbelievable. Kolo admitted he transferred Russell,
Terrell, and Nowatzke from their department without even talking to them, although
they complained of the transfer and that Temple may have made the suggestion that
three other girls be selected for transfer. Nor did Kolo question the manner in
which the transfer was effectuated or the fact that three new girls were hired to
replace the discriminatees. In spite of this testimony, he claimed the discriminatees
were laid off for lack of work and admitted he refused to meet with them after their
layoff. Singleton's testimony and the fact that three new girls were hired at the time
of the layoff completely negates the idea that Russell, Terrell, and Nowatzke were laid
off for that reason or because of inoperative machinery. Equally unconvincing was
his explanation that the discriminatees were recalled because business had picked up
and Hassel's admonition that Kolo had not followed the seniority list insofar as lay-
offs and recalls were concerned.
Counsel for the Company argue that it was the Company's prerogative to transfer
the discriminatees to other jobs and that no particular motive existed for the transfer
and layoff of the IAM proponents because the Company had already recognized Local
130A as the bargaining representative of its employees. Of course, it is well settled
that the Act does not attempt to regulate the employer's control of his business in
the employment, promotion, or discharge of employees so long as he does not at-
tempt thereby to interfere with the right of self-organization of the employees to
intimidate or coerce them.14 I find no merit in this argument nor any credible
evidence to support it.
From the above facts I find that the Company transferred Russell, Terrell, and
Nowatzke from department 607 to 604 and later laid off these individuals because of
its opposition to the JAM and in order to discourage membership and activities in
behalf of the JAM and to encourage membership in Local 130A. By engaging in
such conduct the Company thereby violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
In their brief, counsel for the Company request that I reconsider my ruling denying
their motion to strike the testimony of Nowatzke. The request stems from the
following circumstances. Nowatzke apeared as witness for the General Counsel
and at the conclusion of her direct testimony counsel for the Company asked that he
be furnished with any pretrial statement or affidavit which Nowatzke may have given
to the General Counsel or representatives of the Board. The General Counsel
stated he had no such statement or affidavit in his possession. However, counsel for
the Charging Party admitted he had secured a statement from Nowatzke, which he had
shown to the General Counsel. Counsel for the Company and the Party in Interest
thereupon asked that I direct counsel for the Charging Party to produce Nowatzke's
statement. I denied these requests on the ground that Section 102.118 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations was applicable only to statements in the possession of the
General Counsel and, in the absence of any authority to the contrary (no authority
was cited), I would not direct counsel for the Charging Party to produce Nowatzke's
statement. Counsel for the Company and the Party in Interest then moved to strike
the testimony of Nowatzke, which I denied. They then declined an opportunity to
cross-examine Nowatzke. Counsel for the Company now argue that my ruling
"would open the door to the General Counsel to circumvent Section 102.118 and
deprive Respondent of due process of law." There is no basis for this argument and
assertion. Throughout the hearing the General Counsel, without question or
hesitation, complied fully with the requirements of the rule and, when requested, pro-
duced statements of witnesses which were in his possession. I, therefore, reaffirm my
rulings on the motions to produce Nowatzke's statement and to strike her testimony.15
I find no evidence to support the allegation of the complaint, as amended at the
hearing, that James Walsh unlawfully interrogated employees or applicants for
employment in the period December 1961 through July 1962.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
14 N L.R B v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U S. I; Appalachian Electric
Power Co. v. N.L R B., 93 F. 2d 985 (C.A. 4).
15 Harvey Aluminum ( Incorporated ) and General Engineering , Inc., 139 NLRB 151.
CAMPCO PLASTICS COMPANY, ETC. 1287
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I will
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent has rendered illegal aid and support to
Local 130A and that the Respondent knew Local 130A was not the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees' own choosing when it recognized Local
130A as the exclusive representative of its employees and thereafter executed,
maintained, and enforced an illegal agency-shop agreement with Local 130A, I
will recommend that the Respondent withhold and withdraw recognition from Local
130A unless and until Local 130A is certified by the Board, and that the Respondent
cease and desist from giving any force or effect to the illegal agreement executed
on March 16, 1962, or any other such agreement with Local 130A, affecting said
employees.
Having found that the Respondent has maintained and enforced the agency-shop
provisions of the said illegal agreement, I will recommend that the Respondent re-
imburse its employees, including former employees, for all dues and fees exacted
from said employees, including an allowance for interest at the rate of 6 percent
per annum, said interest to be computed in the manner set forth in Seafarers Inter-
national Union of North America, Great Lakes District, AFL-CIO.is
Having found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of Doris Russell, Birdie Mae Terrell, and Mary Nowatzke, I will
recommend that the Respondent make whole each of these employees for any loss of
pay each may have suffered from the date of her layoff, March 12, 1962, to the date
she was reinstated to her former or substantially equivalent position. Backpay, with
interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, shall be computed in the manner set
forth in F. W. Woolworth Company,'' and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.'s
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, including the unlaw-
ful interrogation of employees, the commission of similar and other unfair labor prac-
tices may be anticipated The remedy should be coextensive with this threat. I
shall therefore recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from in any man-
ner infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Teamsters, Local 130A, and IAM are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By illegally assisting and supporting Local 130A, by recognizing it as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative for the employees, and by executing an agreement
with Local 130A, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (2) and (1) of the Act.
4. By maintaining and enforcing the agency-shop provision of the agreement with
Local 130A, which imposed unlawful discriminatory conditions of employment, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (3) , (2), and (1) of the Act.
5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment and by
transferring and laying off Doris Russell, Birdie Mae Terrell, and Mary Nowatzke,
thereby discouraging membership in the IAM and encouraging membership in
Local 130A, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
6. By interrogating its employees concerning their union membership, activities,
or sympathies in a manner constituting restraint and coercion, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. By establishing, maintaining, and enforcing in a discriminatory manner a broad
no-solicitation rule prohibiting solicitations and distribution of literature at the plant
at any time, including nonworking time, the Respondent has engaged, in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
19138 NLRB 1142 Quality Coal Corporation, et at., supra.
17 90 NLRB 289
18138 NLRB 716
1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
8. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)( I) of
the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
10. James Walsh did not unlawfully interrogate employees or applicants for em-
ployment as alleged in the complaint as amended.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend that the Respondent , Campco
Plastics Company, a Division of Chicago Molded Products Corporation , its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Recognizing Synthetic Processors ' Union , Local No . 130A, as the representa-
tive of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concern-
ing grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or other
terms and conditions of employment , or giving said labor organization any other
assistance or support.
(b) Giving any force or effect to the collective -bargaining agreement with Local
130A, dated March 16, 1962 , or to any modification , extension , renewal , or supple-
ment thereto , provided , however, that nothing in this Recommended Order shall
require the Respondent to vary or abandon any wage , hours, seniority , or other sub-
stantive feature of its relations with its employees which the Respondent has estab-
lished in the performance of this agreement , or to prejudice the assertion by em-
ployees of any rights they may have thereunder.
(c) Giving any force or effect to the agency -shop provision of the aforesaid
agreement.
(d) Discouraging membership or activities in International Association of Ma-
chinists , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , by laying off any of its employ-
ees or by discriminating against any employees in any other manner in regard to
their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
(e) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership , activities, or
sympathies , in a manner constituting interference , restraint , or coercion within the
meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
(f) Maintaining, enforcing , or applying a rule prohibiting employees from solicit-
ing membership in any labor organization during nonworking time or from distribut-
ing literature on behalf of any labor organization during nonworking time in non-
working areas of the Respondent 's plant.
(g) In any other manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self -organization , to form labor organizations, to
join or assist General Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, Local 298, I .B. of T., or International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or
all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Synthetic Processors' Union
Local No. 130A , as the exclusive representative of any of its employees , unless anl
until such labor organization shall have been certified by the Board as such
representative.
(b) Reimburse its present and former employees for dues, fees and other assess-
ments exacted from them as a condition of employment since March 16, 1962, to-
gether with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum , in the manner set forth in
the section of this Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Make whole Doris Russell, Birdie Mae Terrell, and Mary Nowatzke for any
loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of their discriminatory layoff in
the period March 12 , 1962 , to the date of their reinstatement , together with interest
at the rate of 6 percent per annum , in the manner set forth in the section of this
Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying , all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records and reports necessary to
CAMPCO PLASTICS COMPANY, ETC. 1289
analyze the amounts of reimbursement due under the terms of this Recommended
Order.
(e) Post at its plant in Michigan City, Indiana, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 19 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall, upon being duly signed by the Respondent,
be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a
period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(f) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith 20
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of
receipt of this Intermediate Report the Respondent notifies said Regional Director,
in writing, that it will comply with the above Recommended Order, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring it to take such action.
It is further recommended that the complaint as amended be dismissed insofar as
it alleges that James Walsh unlawfully interrogated employees.
19 In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "A Deci-
sion and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" in said notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order."
21 In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall
be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from Synthetic Processors'
Union, Local No. 130A, as the collective-bargaining representative of any of
our employees, unless and until so certified by the National Labor Relations
Board.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement signed with
Local 130A, dated March 16, 1962, or to any modification, extension, renewal,
or supplement thereto.
WE WILL NOT give any assistance or support to Local 130A.
WE WILL NOT require as a condition of employment that employees pay to
Local 130A an amount of money equal to its regular and usual intiation fees
and dues.
WE WILL reimburse each of our present and former employees for all initia-
tion fees, dues, and other moneys unlawfully extracted from them pursuant to
the aforementioned agreement with Local 130A.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership or activities in International Associa-
tion of Machinists, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discrimina-
torily laying off or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment of our
employees.
WE WILL make whole Doris Russell, Birdie Mae Terrell, and Mary Nowatzke
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of their discriminatory
layoff.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union membership,
activities, or sympathies in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or co-
ercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT maintain, enforce, or apply rules prohibiting our employees
during their nonworking time from soliciting membership in any labor orga-
nization or from distributing literature on behalf of any labor organization
during nonworking time in nonworking areas of the plant.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
1290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assist any labor organization , including General Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , Local 298, I.B. of T., or International Asso-
ciation of Machinists , AFL-CIO, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any
or all such activities.
All of our employees are free to become or to refrain from becoming or remaining
members in the above-named or in any other labor organization.
CAMPCO PLASTICS COMPANY, A DIVISION OF
CHICAGO MOLDED PRODUCTS CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 176 West
Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60603 , Telephone No. Central 6-9660, if they have
any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Solo Cup Company and International Brotherhood of Pulp,
Sulphite , and Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 5-CA-
2291. June 19, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 12, 1963, Trial Examiner Sidney Sherman issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermedi-
ate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report, a supporting brief, and a request for oral argument.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.'
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the en-
tire record in this case, including the Intermediate Report, the ex-
As the record, including the exceptions and brief , adequately sets forth the Issues and
the positions of the parties , the request for oral argument is hereby denied.
2 On cross-examination of Van Deusen , a union representative , the Respondent attempted
to elicit testimony tending to show the amount of time the parties spent In their bargain-
ing sessions on the discussion of contract proposals and the amount they spent on the
discussion of employee grievances . The Trial Examiner sustained an objection to such
testimony , and the Respondent excepts to his ruling . As the General Counsel had brought
out on direct examination of Van Deusen the overall amount of time spent in negotiation
sessions , it would have been better practice to have permitted the cross-examination
nought. However , in finding that the Respondent violated Section 8 ( a) (5) and (1) of
the Act, we do not rely on any of the testimony as to the length or content of the bargain-
ing sessions . We therefore find that the Trial Examiner 's ruling was not prejudicial.
Tennessee Consolidated Coal Company , 131 NLRB 536 , footnote 2.
142 NLRB No. 130.